John on April 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Der Spiegel offers some grade A moral equivalence of the kind I’m not surprised to see coming out of Europe:
This is not the “Clash of Civilizations” that the late American political scientist Samuel Huntington prophesied after the end of the Cold War. Instead it is a clash of the extremes. On the one side are the radical, evangelical Christian pastors who offer blanket condemnations of Islam, knowing full well what the consequences might be. On the other side are the Muslim extremists who react reflexively and kill indiscriminately as revenge. Both sides think they are right. And they play by rules that disregard basic tenets of civilization. Man does not kill man. And man does not insult man, either.
Man does not insult man? Since when? There would be no free politics in the West without the ability to disagree and, potentially, insult an opponent. In fact, man must be free to insult other men without fear of violence. This comes close to the definition of a free society. But it gets worse:
One could certainly pose the question: What is worse, the deaths of people or the burning of a book, even if it is a holy book? The answer should be clear to a civilized person, whether Christian or Muslim. But this question is secondary.
Really? Murder is secondary? See I think Muslims murdering those who look like people who dare to disagree with them is the primary issue. Continuing:
The root of the problem is the claim made by both radical Christians and radical Muslims: that their belief is the only absolute truth.
Like him or loathe him, Jones’ view of the Koran is not something limited to Christians. Do atheists who discount the Koran (and the Bible) have any less certainty of their beliefs? Yet this article is notably silent about them.
They differentiate between “us” and “them,” and lack empathy for those with different beliefs. Killing becomes permissable: “They are the non-believers!” Burning books (or drawing cartoons) becomes merely an exercise in free speech.
But we’re not supposed to see a difference between killing and free speech? Hint: One is legal and important to a free society, the other is violent, illegal and crazy. How can that distinction be secondary?
This is a truly disgusting argument which Der Spiegel should be ashamed to have published.
Category: Islamic Jihad |